Template talk:Demote

This template was considered for deletion on 2009 January 27. The result of the discussion was "redirect".

Difference between this and disputedtag

This template exists for a specific purpose which is distinct from that of {{disputedtag}}. There are two situations where you might want to tag policies or guidelines:

(a) When there is an ongoing proposal to change them (i.e. an attempt to reach new consensus). Such discussion does not change their current status, and therefore they should have an information tag pointing people to the discussion. Suitable templates are {{underdiscussion}} or {{underdiscussion-inline}} for proposals to change wording, {{proposed}} for proposed new policies/guidelines, or {{demote}} for proposals to remove policy/guideline status.
(b) When it is claimed that they were put in place without proper consensus (i.e. that they never enjoyed consensus in the first place). In this case their current status is in dispute, and they should therefore be marked with a question-mark tag until the issue is resolved (which should take place quite quickly).

This at least is how I see it, and how it's currently described at WP:Policies and guidelines. If you think the system can be improved, then please join the discussion there.--Kotniski (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've just edited {{disputedtag}}, removing the "or under discussion" bit in line with current guidance.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? To justify your template's existence? What was wrong with including that wording? You do realize that you could have instead edited the "current guidance," don't you? —David Levy 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but guidance is watched by people and is assumed to have consensus, so editing that would be more controversial, particularly when (to me at least) the guidance makes good sense.--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We base that page's text on how templates are used, not the reverse. Template:Disputedtag has long been used in manner suggested by its previous wording, so the "guidance" is incorrect. —David Levy 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Until you just edited it, the wording of {{disputedtag}} indicated that the "page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed or under discussion" (emphasis mine). How did the latter part not accurately describe the situation for which you created {{demote}}, and why (other than to justify your template's existence) was it necessary to remove it? —David Levy 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To conform to the guidance (see above).--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the page's text is supposed to reflect the template's use (not the reverse). If a template's documentation doesn't jibe with the actual template, it's the documentation (not the template) that's wrong. —David Levy 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Again, we don't maintain a hierarchy under which pages are promoted or "demoted." Our policies and guidelines are descriptive (not prescriptive), so a page either accurately describes how we do things or it doesn't. We rely on consensus to make such determinations (and tag pages appropriately), but a page doesn't suddenly rise or fall to a different level as a result. —David Levy 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. We sometimes make consensus decisions to change the way we do things - in that case policies and guidelines are not descriptive (at least, not until it becomes clear whether that consensus change has come into practice).--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a page either accurately describes how we do things or it doesn't. Yes, it's quite possible for a page to shift from one type to the other, but this is a result of the community changing how it does things, not a decision to "demote" the page. The page itself is only a description of our practices. —David Levy 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, essays can be every bit as valid and useful as policies and guidelines are, so suggesting that a page be "demoted" to one is a misnomer in that respect as well. —David Levy 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, though, policies and guidelines are perceived as having a "higher" standing than essays, so the terminology seems sound (though suggested improvements are welcome).--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That perception stems from a common misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, which absolutely shouldn't be reinforced. —David Levy 15:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems a fairly accurate understanding actually, based on observation rather than philosophy. Your philosophy seems not to be shared by many people in practice - at least, not to the extreme extent that you hold it - which rather contradicts the philosophy itself. I would say that policies are descriptive, but not always just of practice, but sometimes also of changes that have been agreed by recent consensus as welcome improvements to practice. Moreover it is the established practice (and therefore implied even by your philosophy) that in the absence of consensus to change, we leave things as they are. So there are two situations requiring different tags: "I propose we think about changing this" and "I assert that this was never agreed". The first should lead to a discussion of the practical pros and cons of the proposed change; the second to a discussion of the events whereby "this" came to be a policy or guideline. I do encourage you to discuss these matters at WP:Policies and guidelines, since there is plenty that could be profitably sorted out in this area, and discussion over there seems to have stalled lately.--Kotniski (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was referring to the belief that "policies and guidelines are perceived as having a 'higher' standing than essays," so your reply appears misplaced within the thread.

2. You're drawing a distinction where none exists; when ideas "have been agreed by recent consensus as welcome improvements to practice," that means that practice has changed. Therefore, a resultant policy or guideline still describes practice.

3. You've cited two situations ("I propose we think about changing this" and "I assert that this was never agreed") but you haven't explained why these require two separate tags. How does {{disputedtag}} (under its previous wording) fail to cover both? That's how it's long been used, and your authorship of documentation to the contrary hasn't changed that. —David Levy 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under your philosophy, nothing would ever change (at least, not by design). Maybe this is a supportable philosophy, but it's clear where the right forum for this discussion is, so let's take it up there.--Kotniski (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?! How did I remotely suggest that nothing should ever change (at least, not by design)? —David Levy 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, normal practice is to propose changes in ways of doing things in the form of changes to policies or guideline pages. If those pages can only reflect long-established ways of doing things, then it would be impossible to change them to reflect recent agreement. But reading again, I see you do define "practice" to include recent agreed changes, so maybe we aren't so far from agreement after all. Perhaps it boils down to whether it's advantageous to use two different tags, with different symbols (i for information vs. question mark for dispute), for the two described situations. I believe it is because (a) people coming to the page are thereby informed of the current status of that page (still accepted as policy/guidance vs. arguably not so), (b) people getting involved in the argument know what the issue is (this is/is not good guidance vs. this was/was not marked as guidance without proper consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I didn't mean to imply that policy/guideline "pages can only reflect long-established ways of doing things."

2. You're drawing a distinction where no practical one exists. If there's discussion regarding the possibility that a page labeled a policy or guideline should not be, it makes little difference whether that's because consensus has changed or because consensus never existed. Until such time as the page is re-tagged {{historical}} or {{failed}}, the practical effect is the same.

"People getting involved in the argument" need only read the relevant discussion(s) to learn the issue's precise nature. No tag is going to come close to adequately conveying this information. —David Levy 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I guess the practical difference is actually more like "it is being asserted that consensus never existed" versus "an attempt is underway to establish new consensus". For example, if someone comes across a page that's recently been marked as a guideline following an obscure unpublicized discussion between three editors, he might reasonably challenge the very marking of it as a guideline, and the red question mark and wording (particularly my revised version) of {{disputedtag}} reflect the situation accurately. But if I believed I could persuade people, for example, that WP:3RR is a ridiculous notion that harms the encyclopedia by being accepted as policy, then I might start a discussion on the talk page and place an information tag on the policy page that discussion is ongoing as to whether this policy should be dropped. That's what {{demote}} is intended for; clearly {{disputedtag}} would be inappropriate and misleading in this case, since I couldn't reasonably claim that 3RR doesn't represent established consensus at the moment. So if you are disturbed by template proliferation and want to delete this one, then the more appropriate replacement would be {{underdiscussion}} (possibly with a new parameter to deal with this particular case), not disputedtag.--Kotniski (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputedtag's purpose is to inform users of an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility that the page on which it appears should not be designated a "policy" or "guideline." This is equally true in both scenarios. In this context, it simply doesn't matter whether the discussion stems from the assertion that a page was inappropriately tagged or the belief that it was appropriately tagged but no longer should be. Either way, the user is viewing a page that allegedly shouldn't carry its "policy" or "guideline" designation at the present time.

Template:Disputedtag includes no claim that a page doesn't "represent established consensus at the moment," and its wording was appropriate until you "revised" it to reduce the template's usefulness. —David Levy 10:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has proved helpful in practice to distinguish between disputedtag and {{underdiscussion}} (or {{underdiscussion-inline}}). The demote template serves as a special case of underdiscussion, when the discussion concerns a proposal to change the status of the page from policy/guideline to something "lower". I haven't reduced the usefulness of disputedtag; I've made its wording more accurate. In the situation where you just want to draw attention to a discussion (not dispute the current status), there are other templates which are more appropriate. This is a result of some rather stupid edit wars at WP:MOSNUM and elsewhere, where defining the demarcation between disputedtag and underdiscussion/underdiscussion-inline was well received and successful in calming things down. If you don't like demote as a separate template, it can easily be incorporated into underdiscussion as a parameter (something like "status"). But there is a difference (as you will see if you look at my hypothetical example) between the two situations, at least in the way they are generally perceived.--Kotniski (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again, no one is contesting the utility of {{underdiscussion}} (or {{underdiscussion-inline}}).

2. You refer above to a hypothetical scenario "when the discussion concerns a proposal to change the status of the page from policy/guideline to something 'lower'." Setting aside your use of the word "lower" (which doesn't accurately reflect how Wikipedia works), the situation that you describe is one in which there is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility that the page on which the template appears should not be designated a "policy" or "guideline." This is the information that {{disputedtag}} conveys. Again, in this context, it simply doesn't matter whether the proposal to remove the "policy"/"guideline" designation stems from the belief that it never applied or the belief that it no longer applies. (Such details belong on the talk page.) What matters is that we don't "demote" pages.

3. Of course you reduced {{disputedtag}}'s usefulness. You deliberately removed the wording that made it applicable to instances in which a page's designation is "under discussion" (because you believe that people should use your template instead). —David Levy 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who invented the "demote" terminology - the policy/guideline/essay hierarchy is well established in the community's consciousness and actual practice, even if you or I think it oughtn't to be.

It's not like I get royalties when people use "my" template. Get rid of it if you like, but let's keep the useful distinction between underdiscussion and disputedtag, which accords with my preferred version of the disputedtag wording. If it's "under discussion" other than in the specific sense of a dispute over consensus, then one of the underdiscussion templates should be used. You don't quite get the distinction I think - it's not "the belief that it never applied" vs. "the belief that it no longer applies", but "the belief that it doesn't apply" vs. "the belief that it SHOULDN'T apply".--Kotniski (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I didn't claim that you invented the "demote" terminology. You certainly aren't the first to mistakenly believe that such a "hierarchy" exists.

2. Again, no one is contesting the utility of {{underdiscussion}}.

3. Once again, you're drawing a distinction where no practical one exists. To someone encountering the tag, the only relevant information is the fact that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility that the page on which the template appears should not be designated a "policy" or "guideline." In that context, it doesn't matter why. A user will either ignore the discussion (in which case the specifics are irrelevant) or read it (in which case he/she will gain a complete understanding, which cannot be conveyed by any template). —David Levy 12:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to point 3 at the TfD page. Re point 2, you are implicitly contesting it, by demanding that the wording of {{disputedtag}} be changed back to the version which implies that it overlaps in scope with the underdiscussion templates. And re point 1, for many practical purposes such a hierarchy does operate, however much we personally may not like it (but I wouldn't object to moving away from the "demote" terminology).--Kotniski (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Template:Underdiscussion merely states that the "page is the subject of a current discussion on the talk page." It does not state that said discussion pertains to the "page's designation as a policy or guideline." The overlap was between Template:Disputedtag and Template:Demote, so you edited the former, thereby narrowing its scope to exclude the application that you believe should be assigned to the latter instead.

2. Such a hierarchy exists only in the minds of people who misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Among them are the individuals who cause disruption (and often end up blocked) when they act on their belief that "this is only a guideline (not a policy), so I can disregard it simply because I feel like it." —David Levy 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2: if it exists in enough people's minds, then Wikipedia does start working like that, even if you don't like it. Just calling a belief "mistaken" or a "misunderstanding" doesn't make it wrong. Anyway, just for you (and I don't know if others will object) I've reworded WP:Policies and guidelines to take out all references to "demotion", added a status parameter to {{underdiscussion}} so that we can still distinguish the two situations ("we should change this" vs. "this was never agreed") in relation to policy/guideline page status discussions as for other discussions, updated and clarified the documentation at WP:Template messages/Wikipedia namespace, and will agree to {{demote}}'s being deleted. Happy? But I still think we make things clearer by removing "or under discussion" from the {{disputedtag}} template, since that's explicitly what {{underdiscussion}} is for.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not asking you to believe that people are mistaken because I "don't like" their behavior. I'm asking you to recognize how Wikipedia actually works; see which users are long-term contributors in good standing and which users end up repeatedly blocked or banned for disruption, and that will tell you how the community feels about maintaining a system of "law-like policies and guidelines" (your description at TfD) that can be enforced/disregarded in a lawyer-like manner.

2. Thus far, all of the TfD discussion's participants (other than you) have agreed that {{demote}} is a redundant fork of {{disputedtag}}. Do you honestly believe that an appropriate response is to instead fork its purpose to another template?

The "demoted" wording is only part of the problem. The other is that you're needlessly drawing a distinction where no practical one exists. Again, all that someone viewing the page needs to know is that there is an ongoing discussion in which it has been suggested that the page shouldn't be designated a "policy" or "guideline." It doesn't matter whether this is because the page was improperly tagged as such or because it should no longer be tagged as such; under neither circumstance should users be encouraged to ignore or abide by the page's advice (as though our policies and guidelines are "law-like" and must be formally ratified/repealed to gain/lose significance). I realize that you're attempting to convey what you regard as an important distinction, but you're really only propagating your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up at WP:Policies and guidlines then, where this matter is properly addressed. You just seem to be repeating your views on the assumption that by repeating them often enough and calling me "mistaken" for disagreeing, that will eventually make you right. I see lots of people with many different philosophies and attitudes - some excessively lawyer-like - to policies and stuff, and most of them are a long way from ever being blocked. I don't understand "fork its purpose to another template" - I'm just making the distinction between the two existing templates which you earlier said you didn't have any problem with.--Kotniski (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's nothing for me to take up at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, as Wikipedia already handles its policies and guidelines in the manner that it should (IMHO). As for me repeating myself, I've merely responding to your continual incorrect statements. You don't have to take my word for it when I try to explain that you're mistaken in your belief that Wikipedia is based on a "law-like" system, but I'm sorry that I've failed to convince you of that.

2. I'm certainly not claiming that everyone who wikilawyers ends up blocked. I cited a common outcome of situations in which such behavior causes disruption.

3. I have no problem with the distinction between "general discussion about a page" and "discussion regarding the possibility of removing a page's policy/guideline designation" (which is what existed before you just edited Template:Underdiscussion to insert the application for which you created Template:Demote). As I've repeatedly stated, I do have a problem with the distinction between "discussion stemming from the belief that a page no longer should carry its policy/guideline designation" and "discussion stemming from the assertion that a page never should have carried its policy/guideline designation." You created Template:Demote specifically to draw this distinction, and we presently are debating whether such a separation should exist (and thus far, every TfD participant other than you has opined that it shouldn't). Therefore, it strikes me as inappropriate at this juncture to shift Template:Demote's application to another template, thereby retaining the contested separation. —David Levy 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As announced at the TfD page, I'm withdrawing from further discussion here. I suggest, though, that you do have a problem with the Policies and guidelines page, since it makes the very distinction that you say we shouldn't be making. And it would still talk about your hated concept of "demotion", if I hadn't just changed it, so I don't doubt there are other things on that page you disagree with as well. Still, I'm sure we can both find better things to do.--Kotniski (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with some of the documentation that you unilaterally authored. I don't, however, disagree with the community's basic policy/guideline procedures. —David Levy 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the template for redirection. —David Levy 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]